Parents and the ESRB: Still Dazed and Confused

You are here

The ESRB is a parent's best friend, there is no question. In a large percentage of cases, this organization can help you make sound decisions in your game purchases. However, it's far from perfect, and some game content is bringing the gaps in the system into sharp relief.

The ESRB is not really aimed at "gamers" per se. When it was established in 1994, the concept that people who played games would be parents wasn't on anyone's radar. Its true target was and is parents who aren't gamers. And while we have our own troubles with it, there is a prevailing attitude suggesting that any mainstream parent who can pour Pepsi out of a boot without a road map will be happy if only they pay attention to the sign in the game store and the big white letter in the black box.

That's not at all an accurate stance in the real world. The ESRB's age ranges and content labels are applied inconsistently. Even with the context that the ESRB's descriptions of gaming experience provide, the labels are so vague and overlapping that they're almost meaningless on a practical level. The system is missing labels that are vital to making a truly informed decision about issues that some parents are really concerned about. And beyond that, the "T" rating fails to take into account the giant gap in age and development between ages 13 and 17.

A couple times a year we get games that highlight the worst of these weaknesses. This year's best candidate would be Batman: Arkham Asylum, with Infamous and Prototype vying for second.

Before I go any farther, I want to say I'm not suggesting that Batman should be re-rated to M like they did with Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion back in May of 2006. But this precise question was asked me by a neighbor with a 14-year-old who begged and pleaded for it for Christmas: Why is Batman: Arkham Asylum T-rated, while Oblivion was changed to an "M" rating?

She and I had gone through the Oblivion mess with his older brother, and after watching her younger son play this, she was upset. And she's got a point. Arkham Asylum goes right down the line with some very similar issues, even to the same dangling, dead bodies. They weren't on fire in Arkham, but still, the player has to slog through The Joker's intermittent, creepy announcements, his exhortations to his henchmen to do you in, depictions of people being tortured, and plenty of other twisted stuff. Some spots festoon the dead from ropes all over, like macabre holiday decorations. It's quite obvious not all the nutjobs are behind the locked doors in that facility even on a good day. And her angry discussion with me about it sent me to investigate the current state of things.

Inconsistent Application Of labels And Age Ratings
That disconnect with Batman's labels and other games isn't a new problem. I had to come to grips with my boys back in the day over Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, which is T rated (for Blood, Drug Reference and Violence) but includes such fun as hanging off the rafters cutting throats, while the M-rated (for Animated Blood and Animated Violence) Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, which involves sneaking up behind people and breaking their necks. Both have players shooting realistic people in realistic settings with very similar results. The section where Raiden is running around naked can't be the difference. In an interesting omission, MGS2 doesn't have a nudity label.

Vague And Overlapping Descriptions
There are five labels for violence. Seems like they cover it all in a fairly straightforward fashion, until you try to figure out what they mean when they're applied to a game's specific setting. To juxtapose two games close in age and general type, how about Prototype and Infamous?

The T-rated Infamous comes with "Blood, Drug Reference, Language, Mild Suggestive Themes, [and] Violence" labels. Prototype comes with just "Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language" and an M rating. The setting of the two games is quite similar: You've been changed into something more than human and you're running through city streets, fighting roving gangs of civilians, military/authorities, nasty things and pretty much anything else that moves to accomplish your goals.

What's the difference between "Violence" and "Intense Violence?" Let's look at the ESRB's Ratings Guide: Intense violence is described as "graphic and realistic-looking depictions of physical conflict ... ." It continues on to bring up gore, which overlaps with the "Blood and Gore" label, and then mentions blood which overlies both "Blood" and "Blood and Gore". So why do we have both listed on the game?

You're punching helicopters in Prototype. This is not realistic. Much of the over-the-top gameplay of Prototype comes off like The Incredible Hulk for the Xbox360, which had a T rating and a "Violence" label. In Infamous, you end up frying people all around your character like you're a human electric eel. This is not realistic, and there's a label for unrealistic violence that's not bloody—"Fantasy Violence." Wouldn't it would be more accurate to use that?

I'm not suggesting Prototype didn't earn it's M rating. You grind your dead enemies into your skin like a ghastly beauty treatment so you can disguise yourself with their likeness. Ick. In Infamous you're electrocuting things to a crisp and sucking charge out of living people, but at least you're not wearing them. On the other hand you do plenty of other bloody damage, and I'm not sure scorched corpses littering the street are a better end product.

Stack up the labels and there is no way to really understand what the qualitative difference between the two games is, or why I should choose one over the other in reference to my children's gameplay.

Issues Not Covered By labels At All, But That Are Important To Parents
I know it's hard to imagine everything anyone can come up with, but there have been a few common ones brought up over the years.

They try to cover various types of violence, but no label discusses the scale. In the ending of Infamous the player is allowed to choose to murder thousands of people in cold blood. Having to beat a big bad guy is one thing; killing everyone in a large radius is another. There's no label for "Mass Murder," or however you want to term this kind of bloodbath.

Guns and other realistic weapons. Some parents don't have a problem with little Jimmy's character using some sort of cartoon ray-gun, but if he's picking up real guns and ammo like in the E-rated Shadow the Hedgehog they're not happy.

Illegal activities aren't covered. For a blatant example, The Godfather games are based on your character performing the acts of a '20s Italian mobster. You run racketeering, bootlegging, gambling and hook-houses, on top of carrying out extortion, blackmail, and murder. None of this is called out unless it involves violence or sex. For a less charged but more insidious example, take a look at the rap sheet you'd get from most Tony Hawk games, particularly Underground and American Wasteland.

Whether the player is the instigator or not is never discussed. Batman himself may not be killing anyone at Arkham, but that doesn't stop anyone else in the game. Between the virus and the thugs, you are constantly wading through piles of mingled dead and unconscious bodies. To some people, the fact that Batman isn't doing the killing matters.

Another question I get—mostly from people I know through church—is occult and religious references. For example, I know someone who doesn't have a problem with something like Ninja Gaiden but was a little squicked by Darksiders and the way it implied that God was absent.

The Age-Chasm Between The T And M Ratings
Please understand that as a gamer and as a fan of Batman for many years, I enjoyed the game thoroughly. I believe it deserved all the positive reviews it got. But ask yourself honestly: Do you think your wife would like to have your 13-year-old play this game unsupervised? Do you? And not just your centered, mature and properly supervised youngster. Think of the least balanced latch-key kid in his homeroom class. That's what a T rating means—all the content in the game is suitable for anyone 13 years and older with no restriction or supervision.

I do not understand why anti-game mavens have a cow about M-rated games they think should be AO while ignoring this issue completely. Getting supposedly AO content in the hands of a 17-year-old is only one year early. Getting M content in the hands of a 13-year-old is a much more worrisome proposition. There are four very important growing years between 13 and 17. Trying to limit all 16-year-olds to the same content as all 13-year-olds is laughable. They are so completely different. Go to a junior high and compare the eighth graders with the juniors at your local high school.

But I Did What You Said...
The part that ticks his mother off most, I think, is that she did what we all keep saying was due diligence and she still got burned. When he'd asked for it on his Christmas list, she looked it up. She found out the rating, and also found that Common Sense Media suggested it as a replacement for Grand Theft Auto IV: The Ballad of Gay Tony in their list of 10 Cool Games that are Uncool for Kids. The GTA game was never in any danger of coming in the house, but she thought, with the facts she'd found and those authoritative endorsements—on top of the way he loved the demo, she was home free.

What Parents Can Do
There are things that parents can do to make this system more approachable for themselves. If you know where to look, there is more information available now.

Ratings Summary: Used to be, all you got was those cryptic phrases to judge the content. But now the ESRB's website offers more detailed descriptions of newer games. They're not printed on the box, but if you look up a specific game via their website or other search tools, you'll find a paragraph or two describing the game's content in more detail.

ESRB Rating Search Widget: If you want to add a quick and easy way to search the ESRB on your website or personal blog, you can download and install a widget that will allow you to search the ratings system and get the platforms, rating, rating summary and content labels right there at your fingertips. There's also a desktop version for your PC.

ESRB Mobile Ratings Guide: If all the ratings on the boxes and posters on the wall in the stores aren't enough, you can also use the ESRB's mobile version of their website. Download the app for your iPhone/iPod from iTunes or the App Store, or go to http://www.esrb.org/mobile from any other mobile device's web browser.

I've long been a proponent of responsible consumption across all media. How did I handle stuff like this when my gang was younger? Well, it's not a solution all parents can put in place. We had a rule that I had to finish all games rated T or above before they were allowed to play it until they were 13, and even at that point I reserved the right to do so if I felt a game was risky. That held true until everyone in the house was M-rated or higher. It has already been suggested that I'm a jackbooted fascist, but I got burnt just like my neighbor did on games like Def Jam Vendetta and Jet Set Radio.

A more generally practical solution all of this is for parents to do the best they can with what the ESRB gives. Follow the age ratings, have intelligent limits on duration, and pay a lot of attention to the kids while they're playing. If something seems off to you, talk to knowledgeable friends or helpful game-store employees. Renting a game and giving it a try yourself may also be an option.

It is a great article. I've had to re-think the games I play at home while the kids are awake. Before thanksgiving I replayed all the Half-Life games and in the beginning I would play it during the day, then my three year old would come over and start watching "Daddy's movie". The wife had to tell me to stop playing it when the kids were up, I caught on too when he would use any utensil in his hand as a gun. Now I play the popcap games and Flora's fruit farm during the day and the 'other' games after they have gone to bed.

I had my own encounter with a misguided label. This goes back a long ways but RALLY FUSION on the PS2 is rated "E". Great, no problem. When you play Career mode you have someone with a slight British accent yelling instructions in your headset as you drive a rally car across a desert and through a mountain town. He's yelling, "Hard left!" as I came into town. I missed the turn and smashed into a building totaling the car. The next thing I get over the headset was, "You wrecked the f***ing car!!" Whoa! How is that an E-rating?

I feel the PEGI, the European system is much better a establishing the "Age-Chasm" with a 12+ 16+ ad 18+ categories. Of course I'm biased because a numerical system with the age was always used in Europe for movies and now games and a letter rating makes no sense to me.

Although 13 to 17 is the same gap that 12 to 16, the difference is that the X rating is not used because the can't be sold in the consoles, and the 18+ is used. So all those titles that you mentioned that are on the high borders of T and is questionable that they should be there, get an 16+ rating in the PEGI system that is completely appropriate.

It never would have occurred to me that they should cover occult imagery. I know that there are third parties that review games from a Christian standpoint, although that is another step parents would have to take in their "due diligence." I'm a little worried about the slippery slope once we go down the road of expecting the ESRB to account for Christian sensibilities though. (This could be a more P&C topic, I realize.)

Your suggestions on content descriptors is very interesting, but could result in a slippery slope if you get into morality and spirituality. Something such as the extent of violence, one murder, several dozen, several hundred, the realism of the violence, the illegal activities are all fairly straight forward and useful. However, for the most part, I think the description of the game on the box or website as well as screenshots on the box will let you know if there is this content, although not always.

Once you get into concepts like religion and the occult, it becomes much more unclear. Should a box have a label if there is any type of spirituality? Most games and movies have some sort of belief system. Does it only need one if non-Christian beliefs are portrayed. Some people believe in the "occult" concepts in some of those games. What if the spirituality is subjective and not so clearly stated in the game? This touches on Julian's recent article. Should someone at the ESRB have the responsibility or control to brand something "atheist," "Christian," "Buddhist," etc? How about the leaning towards those belief systems. Should they write "pro-Christian," or "anti-Christian?" Even then you get into the question of what version of Christianity you're talking about. If The Sims let you have abortions, should they get a "Deals with Abortions" label?

edit: Looks like beeporama and I were thinking the same thing as we wrote our responses :).

ESRB ratings are useful when explaining to my 10 year old nephew why he can't borrow any of my good games. "See, it says that this one is too violent for you. This one has intense violence. This one is about doing adult things with blue alien ladies. That leaves... NHL 2K6. Have fun!"

The Godfather games are based on your character performing the acts of a '20s Italian mobster.

See, internet? This is how you abbreviate decades! The apostrophe goes in front of the number, not behind it!

Yeah, 'tho you could also write '20s /w an apostrophe before the "s" too !

It's already before the 's'.

I meant immediately before. Actually, I meant to be a jerk. I'll stop now.

The Burnout games have been creeping up and down in their ratings from Burnout 2 to Paradise, going from E (Mild Violence) to T (Mild Violence, Mild Language), and back to E10+ (Violence, Language).

I'm sure part of that must be the graphical fidelity of the encouraged destruction, though I don't think the degree of destruction has changed much, not since Takedown certainly, and in that respect the Mild Violence only became Violence in Burnout Revenge.

The weird contributor to the rating change I think is the licensed music. Takedown and Paradise (though not Revenge) include Mild Language and Language respectively, and other than a "Damn, Van!" crash message in the former, I don't remember anything else outside the music that contains any kind of problematic language. But Rock Band is rated T, seemingly all because of the music.

But then Revenge drops the "Mild" from its violence, and goes back to an E10+, and Paradise adds not-mild language and keeps the rating.

So yes, I'm dazed and confused, and upset that a seemingly arbitrary rating scheme keeps the best game of the series out of the hands of preteens. An injustice!

Gravey, I'm never sure, on a scale of 1-10, just how serious you are when you post. – Minarchist

Parents worry far too much about the movies their kids see and the games their kids play. After about age 13 I plan on looking the other way. Not a big deal.

The problem I have is when they see disturbing things unexpectedly. We were watching Pingu over the weekend (claymation peguin and no real dialogue). In one scene a clay seal broke his hand/flipper and the tip dangled in a macabre and disturbing way while both characters, penguin and seal, cooed and cawed in a way that did not seem fitting to the trauma on display. I watched the scene (felling a bit disturbed myself), caught my breath, watched for my daughter's reaction, and waited...

The result...my daughter, once she intuited the horror of the situation, broke into tears at seeing a seal with a broken dangling flipper.

Conversely...she often wakes up from her afternoon naps on the weekend and comes into my bedroom where I am shooting people in the face in a video game (Call of Duty; Mass Effect; etc.) and only remarks, before I get the 360 shutdown, "what is THAT movie? Are you that man?"

Also, Alice in Wonderland disturbed her greatly (rated G) as soon as Alice began to fall into Wonderland through the tree, but she loves Lady and the Tramp even with the dog fights and the vicious rat climax. Danger lurks even in G-rated Disney movies...or maybe not.

The point is...watch stuff with your kids and adjust accordingly and when they begin those first forays into the teenage realm, just let it be. They will be fine. They are smart enough by then, I hope, to put all the sex and violence into context and not be terribly disturbed by the images. And if they are, that is probably a good thing if that is the intention.

Parents worry far too much about the movies their kids see and the games their kids play. After about age 13 I plan on looking the other way. Not a big deal.

I think grand judgments like this are problematic. "Kids" are not a universal constant. There are plenty of kids out there who need a lot more monitoring than others, and no two kids will react the same way to violence, sexual content or other traditionally questionable materials.

That you plan to look the other way around 13 is not something I have a problem with, because I assume you have a good grasp on your kids' mental health and maturity. That doesn't necessarily mean that other parents are fools for measuring their kids exposure to questionable material right up to 15 or 16. I think there are a lot of hazards in taking the position of "what's good for my kid is by extension good for every kind".

I think it's the exact same trap that staunch conservative moralists fall in when trying to legislate the decisions of parents, only as seen from the other side.

The thing about smart people is they seem like crazy people to dumb people -- Thing I saw on the Internet

Great article momgamer - but aren't you preaching to the choir here? I've love to see this kind of article get wider coverage in some other places where it'll get read by folk who need to know this.

Not true. I am a gamer with job, but not a gamer with child. In fact, my interaction with children for whom I have even a tiny iota of responsibility for up to this point has been practically nil. Fortunately, that will all change now that my brother has brought a child into the world. A lot of what momgamer discussed is completely new to me, and I'm finding it informative and thought-provoking. As an adult male with only me to worry about when it comes to game content, I never even take a glance at the ESRB rating. I had no idea that the ratings system was so inconsistent and poorly defined.

Excellent excellent piece, and very thought provoking. And I agree completely with Elysium as well. As for "looking the other way," I don't feel like were a draconian family or that my kids live in a bubble, but I plan on "looking the other way" when I'm dead and not a day earlier. That doesn't mean I say no a lot, it means inplan on being there, knowing, caring, and providing context and counterpoint. Forever.

I think back to when I was a young teenager and all the stuff I used to watch without much problem. Be it stolen Playboys, the latest teen slasher movie, or someone ripping the spine out of an opponent in Mortal Combat. Me and my friends sought that kind of stuff out with a passion. It is a part of maturation and the the inherent curiosity of a kid getting closer to adulthood. By that time, your parents should have given a proper moral structure to properly deal with these explicit images without suffering any ill effects. How long can you shelter them really?

C'mon guys be real. Maybe this is something only boys go through, but what kind of things interested you when you were a teenager? Sorting holy cards?

I' m not saying hand your kid a Playboy, a pack of Marlboros, and the latest Hitman game, but don't you think he will find a way to boost a smoke and check out some naked ladies?

If I was a non-gaming parent, I'd just look up videos of the gameplay and then a synopsis of the story. (in addition to the vague ESRB descriptions) But I also like to give kids the benefit of the doubt. In my experience with my nieces, they can handle a lot more than you think when given the proper guidance. Though, I admit it'd be harder in situations where you can't be in the vicinity when they play.

That you plan to look the other way around 13 is not something I have a problem with, because I assume you have a good grasp on your kids' mental health and maturity. That doesn't necessarily mean that other parents are fools for measuring their kids exposure to questionable material right up to 15 or 16.

I don't doubt that, in some cases, this sort of monitoring is necessary.

But oversheltering is, IMO, a cure that's immeasurably worse than the disease.

Part of growing up is sometimes experiencing things a little too early, and developing coping mechanisms for that.

GWJFFL Trophy Case:
Dynasty: 2012, 2013
Pro: 2013

Stele: "You're just afraid [Rat Boy]'s going to disappear for 2 years on us again"

Re-rating a game because of a dork adding aftermarket pixellated boobies can really muddy the waters, as has happened here. Especially with a morality system that considers boobs worse than gory decapitations.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." ― H.L. Mencken

Thanks for all the great comments, guys. Sorry I haven't been in here earlier today but that "withJobs" part of the name has been a real pain today.

-- Cool that you brought up the "more info" section. I mentioned that other content (called a Ratings Summary) in the article. It is extremely helpful, but it's still not a bullet-proof solution. We used to write stuff like that in every review for Gamerdad, and another place to get commentary of a similar nature these days is a website called WhatTheyPlay.
-- As far as the religion thing: I'm not doing anything but reporting a question I am asked repeatedly. There are parents out there who do want to know this, and it's not just one or two holy-rollers.

As far as what I would do, I don't have a perfect answer. How about we start with just adding a descriptor for "Religious Themes" and use it similar to the way they use "Suggestive Themes" for things like hookers in the background and bad girl villains in tight leather who make awkward moaning noises in their regular conversation (I'm talking to you, Infamous).

It's not necessarily Christian values. It never dawned on me that you guys would read it that way but I see now where you might considering my example. There are plenty of other kinds of religious strictures and they're just as interested in this. The person who I was quoting as having that issue with Darksiders is a Muslim colleague. He knew it wasn't exactly his faith, but he really was disturbed by that.

I'm not saying there's no Christians, though, and those issues wouldn't need to be addressed. :eyeroll: Since I go to church, most of my church considers me a go-to type for this stuff. I know someone (not at my particular church) who banned Kingdom Hearts for the Nightmare Before Christmas section and it's "occult message." I didn't ever find out for sure if it was more because of Jack or Santa.

-- Paying attention: Their enthusiastic marketing efforts (and your rosy recollections) to the contrary, they're not all grown up and able to make the best decisions for themselves just because they can dress themselves and run the microwave. You do not somehow magically acquire adult-levels of discernment or self control by eating a baker's dozen birthday cakes.

I have raised four kids to adulthood now, and I think I can safely attest that there is a heck of a lot more coming down the pike than those of you who don't have teens/pre-teens of your own may know.

A friend of mine ran into this not too long ago. He has long been a staunch defender of very un-structured sexual policies when it comes his daughter. He thought that he should just teach her properly and she'd just handle it because he'd taught her. You don't want to know what he thought about some of my rules. He found his stance wasn't viable anymore when she reached menarche and was physically capable of becoming pregnant (and the little unwashed miscreants in her school were capable of doing their part to help).

And through a similar process, you may find that when your little one is 13 she's not able to handle anything that she decides she can with no help or attention from you. In my experience between my siblings, my kids, and the kids in the Youth Group I volunteer for, I haven't met one that was. I'm not saying you need to keep it G-rated until they move out. But some intelligent structures and ways to intervene without making things worse are part and parcel of the Parent-of-Teenagers toolkit.

If you don't pay attention and have some age-appropriate structure in place, then they can get themselves in too deep very very quickly. Yes, they are going to get into stuff you didn't give them. That doesn't mean you just give up. And if you have built your media rules in a way that works for your family it'll deal and you're right, there is little effect but learning. But if you're not paying attention and don't have any rules then that safety net is gone. You can't know if there are issues or adjust to them if necessary. Raising kids is a long process and it's a whole 'nother ballgame when they're teens. I wrote a long article about this and I'm not going to crib it into here - http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/3...

Oversheltering is an awful thing, and it is endemic. But paying attention to their lives and helping them build responsible media consumption habits for their lifetime is not oversheltering. If it is, then you're doing it wrong. I'm saying know what their favorite band is, or enough details about their favorite hobbies to be able to have an intelligent conversation. Not be a jackbooted thug.

Elysium raised a great point. There is no one-size-fits-all-panty-hose type of solution for this. It all depends on each kid. I, for one, would not have suggested Batman for that kid in the OP. Not because of the creepiness, so much, but because of the gameplay. The sneaking and detective work and puzzle solving parts of this game were a real trial to him. He's a great kid, but he's got the attention span of a plastic goldfish. Caution and considered judgment aren't hallmarks of his character. And it's all right. He's 14 and he's got time to finish growing up.

I wasn't going to try to cover that whole can of worms in just one article, though.

Maybe this issue is best debated amongst the people who need to get off my lawn. - JoeBedurndurn

Re-rating a game because of a dork adding aftermarket pixellated boobies can really muddy the waters, as has happened here. Especially with a morality system that considers boobs worse than gory decapitations.

Actually DeVil, that's not correct. It was re-rated because of that, and also a great deal of content the ESRB claimed wasn't include in the ratings documentation. Specifically called out was the environment in the Oblivion sections of the game (like the hanging dead bodies lit on fire to be used as lamps), the Bloodworks, and the Dark Brotherhood quests in particular. See this for a start at looking at the issue including links. Since this was 2006, you are going to have to watch for linkrot, though.

Maybe this issue is best debated amongst the people who need to get off my lawn. - JoeBedurndurn